The rail thing

According to Gil Howarth, project director of the Channel Tunnel rail link (CTRL) or HS1 as it has come to be known, all big rail projects need to be championed by a prominent figure in Westminster, City Hall, or both.

Howarth told The Engineer that a political champion in his mind is responsible for, ‘gaining cross-party support and backing from the Treasury, while publicly promoting the scheme and helping to secure support from all stakeholders.

‘The person who got the Jubilee Line extension built was Steve Norris when he was minister for transport and minister for London,’ said Howarth. ‘If you look at Crossrail then that’s been Boris Johnson, and Ken Livingstone before that. HS1 was originally Michael Heseltine and then taken over by John Prescott.’

‘There isn’t a champion for HS2,’ claimed Howarth at the HS2 press briefing London this week.

Meanwhile, Lord Adonis, secretary of state for transport from 2009-2010, told The Engineer that he believes both the current transport secretary, Justine Greening, and David Cameron are acting as HS2 champions.

However, he also claimed: ‘They need to get a move on in introducing the legislation for HS2. It is not scheduled to be introduced into Parliament until the end of 2013, which is nearly four years after I published the plan for HS2.’

But the prime minister and his transport secretary aren’t the only two dilly-dallying on HS2.

Elsewhere, Boris Johnson, the current mayor of London and the favourite to remain in power at City Hall, revealed to Camden voters that he is yet to be convinced by HS2; a statement likely to appease the residents who will be inconvenienced to one degree or another over the course of a decade due to Euston Station’s whole-scale demolition.

So why the hesitation and reluctancy to commit? Part of the reason HS2 is without a key backer at this stage is likely to be because it’s still early days. Even though a plan has been put forward and approved, no one wants to be seen ‘championing’ HS2 as there are still many concerns relating to the route, the trains, the cost, the integration with other lines, and the time frame it will all be completed in.

‘That’s why we need to get the debate properly matured because the worst possible outcome is that this could become political football in the next general election,’ said Jeremy Acklam, member of the Transport Policy Panel at the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET).

‘We need to have a key supporter on side from each party by the time we get towards our next election,’ he stressed.

The IET is getting the debate started at the National Railway Museum in York on 7th June where the discussion will focus on what aspects of the proposals for HS2 could be changed so that the benefits of the population north of Birmingham can be significantly improved.

Projects of this magnitude are key to UK growth but without a committed champion they can also be susceptible to setbacks and delays. With the backing of the engineering sector and arguably more importantly, the British public, I’m optimistic a champion or two could emerge from under the covers in the near future.

An interview with the technical director of HS2, Prof Andrew McNaughton, will appear in the 28th May issue of The Engineer.

Visit the UK’s dedicated jobsite for engineering professionals. Each month, we’ll bring you hundreds of the latest roles from across the industry.

With the daily demolition of every single aspect of the HS2 project, critical mass, the tipping point, will soon will reached, and the whole HS2 fantasy, like an oddity in outer space, will suddenly disappear down a black hole, for eternity.

What is needed is the championing of alternative technology to bring business people together. ie: Internet conferencing. If the budget for HS2 was used to install super fast broadband for everyone, particularly businesses, then not only would the British public benefit as a whole rather than a minority it would also be much more environmentally friendly and ultimately it would not be a the huge ‘white elephant’ that HS2 will undoubtedly be!

With a rapidly worsening cost benefit ratio (half the initial guestimate of 2.4) it is already looking like a very poor investment. By the end of the Y route, the cost is predicted by some to exceed £90,000,000,000, an unbelievably huge amount of money that begs the question, who will benefit from it, other than the developers themselves?

Instead of a fast link to favour a few, why not put more, longer and more frequent trains on the existing tracks. Also make the ticket cost a lot less than the petrol cost. Surely this would cost a lot less than 90 billion pounds, would get a lot of people out of their cars and be advantageous to everyone.

As others have stated the problem with HS2 is the complete lack of a business case. The days of throwing lots of public money and extra energy consumption at a prestige project so that a few can travel faster have surely passed. If we really want to spend £34Billion on a rail infrastructure project (and there are good arguments to do that) then there are much better ways to spend it so that more people benefit. Why not improve local services so more of the general population can get to work by train?

HS2 is a chronic waste of taxpayers’ money, an environmental travesty, is completely unnecessary as there is plenty of capacity on the West Coast Main Line now and 30 years down the line. It is utterly unjustifiable and should not be built!

Perhaps this project should be totally privately funded with the investors gaining their returns directly from “bums on seats”.
All land required should be purchased at the going rate, once planning permission has been granted for each parcel! That should kill it!

The trouble with political ‘champions’ for major projects is that they refuse to look at the specific details of what is being proposed. They prefer to deal in rhetoric. What is needed for HS2 is not more ‘champions’ but an indpendent and objective analysis of the costs and benefits, the environmental impact and the effect on the rail network as a whole. As the previous comments have demonstrated, the facts we have so far suggest that HS2 is a huge waste of public money which could be better spent on a wide range of alternative infrastructure investments

I think it would be near political suicide to become a champion of HS2. You would be supporting a project that has now failed so completely that it is classified as ‘amber/ red’ by the gateway process of the cabinet’s Major Projects Authority; the chair of the Public Accounts Committee has torn the assumptions behind the case for HS2 to shreds; you would be spending upwards of £33 billion of UK tax payers money on a scheme that then – as a ‘core’ route – will be HANDED OVER TO THE EU to run, separated from Parliamentary over sight; you will be pushing a route where over 90% in a public consultation said ‘no’; you will be pushing a route that will overwhelmingly benefit London and pretending it is in the national interest; telling desperate commuters all over the country that there is no money for them until after HS2 is completed (in 2050?); following in the footsteps of one UNELECTED champion (Adonis), another who referred to it unashamedly as ‘a rich man’s toy’, and a third (Greening) who displays complete two-faced cheek when she makes identical arguments in relation to her opposition to Heathrow (protecting her constituents) and them rubbishes those same arguments in relation to HS2. What we ACTUALLY need is a champion that will commit to developing an integrated national transport strategy; and yes – commit to spending the same amount that HS2 will cost but right across the country, in relation to urgent passenger and freight needs, and with real impacts on greening our transport infrastructure. That’s what ‘the real thing’ is.

Anything that has a clear net benefit probably doesn’t need a champion.
As Mr Nolan states above, we need objective analysis and not spin.
There are ways in which the existing transport infrastructure could be used more effectively. How about allowing anyone who can reasonably do so to telecommute, and to have flexible hours when they do need to go into work? This policy would have wide social benefits in addition to the congestion and pollution saved. For example it would bring people into active employment who may currently be unable to travel daily, because of disability, childcare commitments or any other reason.

this whole project is becoming a laughing stock – there aren’t any benefits apart from to the people driving it through – time to kick it into the long grass and bring out some properly thought out alternatives for goodness sake!

I see the anti-brigade are out in numbers – this article is linked via the STOPHS2 website. The usual ill-informed claptrap masquerading as informed comment much in evidence.

For the record, there IS a clear timetable for HS2 – the Hybrid Bill will enter Parliament on 25th October next year and receive Royal Assent on or around early Feburary 2015, three months BEFORE the next general election.

The current legal nonsense going on behind the scenes is pure delaying tactics, nothing more and nothing less, a futile last ditch attempt to try and slow things down so the Hybrid Bill cannot complete its legislative passage prior to the planned election date, therefore suffering from the vagaries of political infighting during the election process. In this manner the nay-sayers (see above and all doubtless residing in close proximity to the approved phase 1 route) hope to sabotage the project.

Their efforts will fail and HS2 will proceed. A political champion will appear in due course but as the author points out – it’s early days yet!

P.S. I live in Alderley Edge and yes, I will be in relatively close proximity to phase 2 of the new line (preferred route announced later this year)

Why not spend a fraction of the money investing in fibre optic technology so half the pointless ‘monthly catch up meetings’ can be cancelled & everyone can save the pointless journey to a pointless meeting…& do it via video link instead. At least the journey time will really be saved (by far more than 20 minutes) & we can all get some work done…

Money for rail transport would be better spent extending HS1 from St.Pancras to the north of England. BUT, before anything else the Country needs enough power generating plant to take over when the coal fired ones are closed in the present decade. HS2 comes well done the list of priorities.

Of course it needs a high level sponsor, because it’s a ridiculous, criminal waste of money that will fuel the continuing ludicrous levels of overmanning, overpaying and subisidies in our farcical rail network, and as has been shown ,will subsidise businssmen’s and banker’s journeys to the tune of a couple of grand per ticket for the net benfit of saving mybe fifteen minutes on a journey that allowing for getting to and from stations is usually over three hours anyway.
A sad sick joke that needs to be buried.

How can a government in such economically bad times ever justify a project on this scale that brings a small benefit to a very small minority of the population! I bet the ticket prices will be more expensive for HS2 than a ‘normal’ train so no one will even use it! Even when it was (only) about £34bn, as opposed to the £90bn that Stephen mentioned earlier I still think it’s hugely unviable purely financially.

Speaking of using the money elsewhere in rail transport is all very well, but that still excludes a lot of people. You realise just how not down to Earth the politicians are when they drive round in thier Range Rovers that are all paid for through expenses when the workers (and students like me) who keep this country moving are having to fork out over £25/week for bus fares when even the services are not good at all. It’s no wonder so many people don’t go on to further and higher education when so much support has been taken out by the government.

Something to think about:
I read, earlier this year, that in London, the government spends £2700/person on public transport; in the North East (where I live) this figure is £5.

Now we want a new design brief
A. Give the country value
B. We know what other countries are paying so no excuses.
C. Provide the service that we really want.
D. Get out of your design straight jacket and breath some life into this!

It is very revealing to see the universal opposition to this project even on a website like this where you may expect to find engineers champing at the bit to show off their technical prowess on such a major showcase project.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, and those promoting HS2 are deliberately ignoring public opinion, inconvenient facts and a grossly overstated business case which anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see has been biased from the start. Our (the taxpayers’) £33bn (or more probably £90bn) could be spent in much better ways on the railway network. How about reversing the order of things – upgrade the existing network (longer platforms, upgraded track, rolling stock and signalling to increase train speeds and frequency etc.) then see in 2050 if we still need HS2, whether the 15 or 20 minutes saving in journey time still justifies the spend, and properly analyse how many people will use the service at the extortionate fares it will have to charge to be viable. The M6 Toll should make a good case study for a start!

Britain is a lot smaller than Japan or France, and the impact on travel times is a lot less. Ditch this white elephant now!

In their own words. HS2 is not an answer to over-crowding because high speed means fewer trains can travel and with fewer people onboard. CO2 is poor as this airspeed is not dissimilar to an aircraft flying at altitude, and it requires 3 times more concrete than they are admitting to. Do the junior school maths ie length of tunnel, diameter, lining thickness etc. High speed will be too expensive for users, witness the dutch HS rail bankruptcy. In 20 years, video conferencing will have replaced business travel, so who will use it??

There is, and has been, a need to improve infrastucture between the North and London for decades, but this? The country needs an upgrade to the “pinched” M6 between Birmingham and Manchester not HS2. Remember freight will not be carried on HS2 and for those who believe you can’t build enough road capacity, have a look a the M74 to Glasgow, upgraded for many years now and still running just fine. This can be part of a solution for non-urban infrastruture

We used to have a ready-made path for HS2. It was called the Great Central Route, from Marylebone to the East Midlands. Built to Berne loading gauge and laid out for fast running. Until that nice DrBeeching came along, and against all the best advice at the time . . . . . Everything goes around in circles, eventually?

just like the other carbunckle the M6 Toll road,
whatever happens with HS2, very few will be able to afford it and additional work to existing lines will still have to go ahead to relieve passenger saturation.

Just like the M6 needed widening after the M6 Toll had been completed.

It appears to me that the idea was born in London, is driven by people in London, some of whom are just on another Westminster ego trip. It’s the rest of us, not in London, that will be suffering the all the consequences of such a folly as it sucks all the cash out of more worthwhile projects. If those in London are so desperate to build a railway why not just use one lane of the M25 to do it. The whole of Westminster could then be placed upon it driven round and round until sense was rediscovered.

Forget about HS2 (H2S) spend the cash on improving what we have on the west and east coast.

What I have found interesting of all the comments, is the fact that there are a good number of those who are really thinking out of the box. I noted only one in favour but there is nothing in their comment of why they favour HS2

The real question to be asked should be about the need to travel to London, there are infinitely far better ways to work than getting on a train. All it takes is a few changes in the way we work and adapt

The answer to what we all really want is better communication, just imagine what we could really do with their proposed budget.

Almost universal condemnation of this profligate madness (bar one?) surely reflects the publics view on this. This overwhelming negativity comes from all branches of society; rich, poor, technical or highly educated and all others. Their views are more than amply supported by any fiscal, technical, social or economic study that is conducted using truth and hard facts rather than political wishfull thinking. Regarding existing rail; replacing signaling and traffic control with the latest technology and removing bottlenecks could potentialy double capacity. Check with the best rail engineers! Dump HS2>

Whatever will the standard fares be for this service..? Current cost for me and my wife to take our 2 boys from Bournemouth to London on a day trip to visit the museums is £241.00…!!!! Cheapest was £147.00 that provide ridiculous departure and return times..!! My boys have never been on a train which is a shame as I travelled everywhere on trains as a lad on the old away-day reurn.

To the last anonymous poster who really has no clue on the cost of transportation surely?!

With a freinds and family railcard (that has 50% off currently through the Daily Mail) a return on Sat 7th of July for you and your wife and two boys is £77.90. The options are great from 5am to 11pm pretty much.

To post on The Engineer board I’m sure you know how to use the Internet? – Apparently not.